Tag: Likelihood of Confusion

What are "Related Goods" for the purpose of evaluating Likelihood of Confusion?
Answer
The leading case on evaluating likelihood of confusion is the 1973 case E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co. In it, the Court sets out a series of factors to be evaluated when determining likelihood of confusion under § 2(d) of the Lanham Act. One of these factors looks to see if the two marks are used on "related goods" or services or if their marketing activities would result in consumer confusion. If the goods are not related at all, or they are NOT marketed in a way where potential consumers would incorrectly create an assumption that they come from the same source, then, even if the marks are identical, confusion is not likely.
When evaluating whether goods are related goods and precluded from registration, courts have repeatedly noted that the question of relatedness requires a showing that the goods are connected in the minds of the consumer. They, in...

Offices

What People Are Saying

"He was available when needed and was willing to explain things clearly to me that i didn't understand about contracts." ~ Client

Area Served

Kunkle Law PLC is a Twin Cities (Roseville) law firm serving clients in greater Minnesota and the Twin Cities metro area, including Minneapolis, St. Paul, and the rest of Hennepin, Ramsey, Anoka, Washington, Carver, Scott, and Dakota counties. Trademark services are provided across the United States, Europe, the middle east, Africa, and Australia.